Yes - your computer analogy conflated me (a human person, existing in the physical world) with a nonphysical intelligence, of which we have no evidence and which isn't even characterized in a meaningful way - it's just a placeholder for "mystical stuff I feel but don't understand".

If you want to say you believe what you do on faith, or that it's your own spiritual belief and therefore none of my business, I won't begrudge you that and I won't bother you about it. You seem to be asserting, however, that there exists empirical evidence of non-corporeal souls (though you didn't use this word). I disagree on that point, vigorously.

Not quite. Your counter argument is "doing things to the brain affects our mind, which shows our mind is physical." The analogy I offer shows that the fact doing something to X affects Y does not mean that X is Y.

So, the evidence you offer that the mind is physical does not actually show the mind is physical.

You've either failed to understand, or you're being intentionally obtuse.

> Not quite

Yes quite.

> The analogy I offer shows

It does not, for reasons I explained.

You're observing physical phenomena, and concluding there must be magic hiding behind them.

Physical and nonphysical are beside the point. The point is X influences Y does not mean Y is X.

My claim is that Y is not X.

You argue that X influences Y, therefore Y is X.

I provide a counter example that shows you cannot infer Y is X just because X influences Y. You need another premise to demonstrate from your example that Y is X.

I see, you want to (poorly and incompletely) reduce my points to a syllogism, and point out that I'm not formally proving the physical nature of the mind (which is more appropriately addressed by the last few hundred years of science than a toy logic problem).

Meanwhile, you have not presented any evidence or argument (or even actual definition) of your magical antenna hypothesis.

"You can't falsify my unfalsifyable hypothesis, therefore it must be true" is not reason, especially when your hypothesis is in no way needed to explain the oberved phenomena (and is, in fact, inconsistent with all empirical observation).

You don't get to play stupid word games and declare that therefore magic is real.

Or rather, you do, but rational people will feel free to ignore you, as I am about to do.